HotshotQuestion, you deploy your F-35s to remote areas.. one here, one there and so on… how do you support them with no heavy infrastructure, no roads to bring anything to them, no runways to land transports with necessary stuff, fuel and so on?
Because, flying your aircrft to a remote area is nice.. being able to operate it is a whole different thing
The F-35B is supposed to be able to operate from austere environments. These forward deployed F-35s would not be flying with a high sortie rate on CAP missions, they would just be waiting on the ground ready to take off. The mini base would have just enough fuel for around 10 missions and one or 2 reloads of AMRAAMs.
The mini bases would have to be prepared before the war begins, and they would be reloaded by helicopters. There are civilian helicopter bases spread throughout northern canada that could be used to refuel the helicopters.
It would require a detailed plan for sure.
As an example, Inuvik is a small town in the NWT not too far from Alaska. Most Streets and roads are paved. That would be fine for the F-35B.
HotshotYeah there might be a market for a relatively low cost and relatively long range supercruiser. If Canada built the wings they could make quite a bit of cash with international customers.
HotshotIf I were do plan such attack on Canada.. I would try and take out the Northern bases first. And most of all any early detection radar facilities.
By then you could reach further inland.
Seems like a plausible plan..
It is indeed plausible, that’s why the airfields in the north would be very hard to defend, unless you have some very effective anti-missile capability. With F-35Bs you could deploy the fighters to small strips of roads, they would be much harder to attack. They would be able to defend against attacks on air bases in the south by intercepting the russian bombers before they launch.
Also there are indian villages and small towns along the arctic. Some of them probably have some paved roads that the F-35Bs could use. They would need to add thermion pads for landing too. I would ask the USMC their opinion on how they would proceed with such a plan.
Hotshot“AESA radars are known to be more resistant to jamming and they have more detection range. The APG-81 also has advanced LPI modes.”
jamming and lpi does not matter in the slightest,
the issue with regards to intercepting the bomber is that, if it is to be detected at all before launch it takes an awac far out on patrol,
and then you need to actually intercept it too, before it dumps the load and make a U-turn, after which no fighter can ever catch it.
the issue with intercepting the missiles is that they easily get lost just above surface, weather is presumably not on the defenders side either up there
That’s why the RCAF needs some long range detection capability. The fighters AESA radar would provide more accuracy even against jamming in order to be able to launch BVR missiles.
Shooting down cruise missiles would be very hard, that’s why I was talking about killing them in the last 30km or so before they strike the airbases with fighters flying just overhead. The fighters used in that role could be loaded with their maximum AMRAAM capacity. AESA radars have good multi-target capability so it might work rather well. If they are datalinked with ground launchers via link-16 possibly all incoming missiles could possibly be engaged.
HotshotI had the same idea of building a modern F-16XL based on the F-16V. Canada could build the wings probably. It would be cheaper than other alternatives and it would provide a supercruise capability. But an F-16 would not be as well supported later.
Possibly they could even build lengthened CFTs for it, but I am not sure it could supercruise. Maybe with the F100-232 or F110-132 it could.
HotshotAny AESA radar would not make any different.
The Bombers can launch at 3000-3500km away remember.. Kalibr cruise missiles, Kh-101 and what not..
AESA radars are known to be more resistant to jamming and they have more detection range. The APG-81 also has advanced LPI modes.
Yeah the missiles have a very long range, that’s why it is impossible for an interceptor to shoot down the bombers before they launch if they attack the airfield in the north. Deploying fighters on those airfields would be pretty dangerous. However, if the russian bombers attack air bases in the south, they could be intercepted. The F-35B would have about 700nm of range with EFTs if those are jettisoned when empty. It would be better if they had supersonic tanks. The RCAF needs to have the ability to detect the russian bombers from very far, possibly with OTHR radars.
I wish Canada built some custom parts for its planes. Like special supersonic tanks with possibly pylons carrying extra AMRAAMs like on the F-15. Or low drag pylons for one AMRAAM like on the CF-18.. Etc.
HotshotThe russian bombers are not stealthy so they would be easy to detect at long range. AESA radars have good anti-jamming capabilities and BVR missiles have HOJ.
The russian cruise missiles have a low RCS but they could be intercepted by the terminal defenses.
I like the idea of a mix of a high end fighter and an armed trainer. The high end fighters would intercept the bombers before they launch with long range missiles to cover a large sky volume ( 120D, meteor or even something bigger ). The armed trainers would fly right over the air bases to intercept the cruise missiles. They would have an AESA radar for detection at significant range and would be datalinked via link-16 to ground launched AMRAAM launchers to engage them ( HUMRAAM style or say a 5 tons trucks with 10+ AMRAAMs ). They wouldn’t need that much time on station because they could quickly land to hot refuel.
HotshotIf they want to hit air bases in the south they’ll have to get close to canadian borders to launch their cruise missiles. Canada is a HUGE country. Non STOVL interceptors would have to operate from the small airfields in the north but the russians can attack those airfields with cruise missiles and there is no way these interceptors would have enough range to intercept those bombers before they launch. Hence the need to disperse the planes to very small launching pads.
HotshotThe specifications have to take into account that the fighter has to be able to intercept the russian bombers before they launch their cruise missiles. Maybe a STOVL plane operating from small deployable strips of airfield would be effective for that. The RCAF could have 12 such mini bases at 500km intervals along the arctic, each capable of operating up to 6 STOVL planes. Also EFTs would increase the F-35B’s range significantly and the B’s maneuvrability is more than enough to intercept bombers.
HotshotI must admit I find this to be rather odd — why on earth are they developing this now — for internal carriage with F-22 and F-35? I thought those planes were supposed to have a huge advantage due to stealth, sensors, sensor fusion, data links, etc?
Or do they develop this now because they fear that China (or Russia) is making more progress than previously believed?
This would be great for the 4. gen and 4.5 gen fighter jets, if it works it would increase survivability significantly I would guess.
The MSDM and SACM will be launched from the BRU-61/69 quadruple launcher, so it seems hard to make them launchable from rail launchers also. The F-15s/F-16s would have to carry the BRU-61 which would be kind of a PITA in air-to-air configuration. Maybe they want the F-15s and F-16s to stay close to the F-35s/F-22s so that they can benefit from an anti-missile protection. Or maybe they would use those missiles with BRU-61s on wing stations on the F-16s and on CFT stations on the F-15E at the expense of G and AOA capability. Mmh…
HotshotThe government already thinks the F-35 is too expensive. And you want to throw 24 F/A-50’S into the mix when we already operate the hawk?
I doubt we would replace the hawk for quite awhile. Look how long our tutors have been in service. Chances are that it will be one Aircraft and not a mixed fleet.
The hawks won’t last for ever…
HotshotActually every air force has to operate 2 types of plane if the trainer is counted. Usually trainers are not armed but they are becoming more and more sophisticated so arming them could be cost-effective. A supersonic fighter can also be useful to better train the pilots operating the other more powerful plane.
For the RCAF for instance, maybe they could get like 24 F/A-50 to complement the 65 F-35s.
HotshotYes, the F-35 is a much better funded program, which makes sense when you consider it is developing 3 5th generation airframes.
The greater resources were actually part of my point in the first place though. Only a couple dozen Rafales have AESAs…. zero operational Typhoons or Gripens. No, life isn’t fair.
So next time, compare what’s comparable, if your goal is to be taken seriously.
HotshotBogdan exagerates when he says 20%, but it goes to show that in fact he doesn’t seem to like multi-variant planes too much.
HotshotObsolete is a strong word… the currents EOTS works fine, it just isn’t state of the art. This is a similar argument to what Rafale and Eurofighter fans said about the radars in those planes… They worked fine, but weren’t on par with the latest systems available elsewhere and so discussions about a replacement (AESA) radar were ongoing even as the planes reached IOC.
The difference is the speed with which the F-35 program is implementing the upgrade. The Rafale had to wait ~10 years for its AESA radar, the Eurofighter is still waiting.
Right, keep on comparing the F-35 development with other programs that had like 4 times less money available to make your point. As if anyone would take that kind of argument seriously.
Sign In
